- From: Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:57:09 -0500
- To: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
- Cc: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote: > No problem adding an acknowledgement of being informed by bibo sentence. > > Somewhere in the description section: “The discussions behind these > proposals was informed from several sources with the Bibliographic Ontology > (bibo) deserving specific mention." Sounds good. > I’m wondering how much our rationale for PublicationVolume would inform the > proposal to the wider community or confuse them. Under danbri's guidance, schema.org seems generally interested in trying to maintain compatibility with existing ontologies, so I think it would make the proposal stronger if we had a section like: """*Bibliographic Ontology mapping: In particular, the following properties and classes should be considered equivalents (owl:equivalentProperty / owl:equivalentClass):" New: * schema:issueNumber -> bibo:issue * schema:issn -> bibo:issn, bibo:eissn (assuming that's valid...) * schema:pageStart -> bibo:pageStart * schema:pageEnd -> bibo:pageEnd * schema:pagination -> bibo:pages * schema:Periodical -> bibo:Periodical * schema:PublicationIssue -> bibo:Issue (* volume property excepted) Existing: * schema:isbn -> bibo:isbn * schema:CreativeWork -> bibo:Document (maybe?) ... """ ... then it would make sense to have a rationale for why we deliberately broke the mapping. Even if we don't include a partial mapping in the proposal, people will eventually ask why we chose to do what we did (even if it happens after the proposal has been accepted); we might as well make that argument explicit. > As to examples, as long as they are syntacticly correct with respect to our > proposal, I believe the more the better. Great, I'll start adding them then! Dan
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2014 17:57:39 UTC